I'm NOT a Progressive (elitism v. choice)

[alcibiades_mystery]

I was challenged as to my "Progressive" credentials on another thread (I was also called an ASSHOLE and a TOOl, but who's counting), and it did make me think about it. And I realized, given the positions, that I don't identify myself as a Progressive. I'm a Leftist. So, what's the difference? Leftism was cool because it didn't require you to suffer opinions in the name of general tolerance. The namby-pamby world of Progressives seems to be devoid of critique, because the moment you critique something, you are suddenly being "intolerant." This is nonsense, as every Leftist knows. Now, I'm not accusing progressives of being secretly complicit with conservatism (although this is the general Left critique of such positions), but it is clear that conservatives were easily able to co-opt the discourse of tolerance and turn it against real reform, such that the legitimate struggle for gay rights is now portrayed as "intolerant" of Christian fundamentalism, and other nonsenses of this type. This is the political and rhetorical cost of the utterly vapid discourse of tolerance touted by our "progressives."

Leftism was built on critique, identified itself with critique, and had the stamina to say yes, some shit is stupid, some shit is generally destructive, some shit should be criticized - maybe even everything must be critiqued, ruthlessly and without "tolerance" in advance. Read Adorno and Horkeimer, read Marcuse, hell, read Debbs. You'll never see the empty notion that "opinions" should be "respected" simply because they are opinions. Rather, you see ruthless, cutting, even vicious attacks on opinions, with the following question always at stake: where do such opinions come from? Where do tastes come from? This is progressivism's greatest failure: the segregation of the "personal opinion" from the realm of political and economic power. In progressivism, the "opinion" is attached to the essence of the person (it comes from some mystical Self), and then raised to the level of a sacred entity. Hence all the wailing and moaning about "attacking my opinion," which is immediately equated to attacking the person. Leftism had none of this. The opinion, for Leftism, was a social phenomenon that was instantiated in individuals. It didn't come from the Self. Rather, it came from the social realm of political and economic power and was picked up by "selves" as a result of their placement in a dynamic social realm. For this reason, the critique of "personal opinions" is actually the critique of social power, always. The faux respect for "personal opinions," for Leftism, is complicity with social power, the failure to ask, rigorously, where opinions come from, and work on the power relations that form them.

This doesn't mean that the taste for Olive Garden or love of Walmart are the only "opinions" to be critiqued. Leftism demands that the opposing "opinions" (which, interest of disclosure, I hold), must also be critiqued. What are the social investments in "local economies" and "authentic cultures" that drive the dislike of chain restaurants? Are these actually reactionary and nostalgic tendencies? And if you say that that's "reading into things too much," or that "choice" of restaurants or stores is "off limits for critique," then you've already performed the problematic segregation: the illusion of the person segregated from the realm of political and economic power. One could, of course, go on. But the point here is simple: you will never catch me saying that opinions are beyond critique simply because they are opinions. That is the political and intellectual dead-end that progressivism leads us to, and it is all too common. Maybe I'm the one being nostalgic here, but I want some of that old-fashioned Leftism back. I want some of that Adorno nastiness and contempt to re-enter the political discourse. Because some things are deserving of contempt. Yes. I'm definitely NOT a progressive, and I'm damn glad for that.

[Fierce]

1. Ha!

There are many reasons I dislike the label "progressive" and many in the "progressive" movement. I'm not sure I agree with this totally, but I see where you're coming from, definitely.

Edited for a spelling error I make consistently.

[Jed Dilligan]

2. I always thought liberals were the

"respect everyone's opinions" crowd, and progressive just encompassed anyone who wants to see us heading in a new direction--which would not include liberals and their uncritical philosophy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. Six of one, half a dozen

I'm not a liberal either. ;-)

[Finder]

4. I am a progressive...

the definition on wiki describes progressivism well:

"Progressivism is a political philosophy whose adherents promote public policies that foster social change. As a broad characterization of political leanings, political progressivism mostly refers to social liberalism, social democracy, or green politics. Progressivism may also mean preferring moderate change, as opposed to minimal or maximum change. In this sense, it is contrasted with reactionary, conservative, as well as radical ideology."

I do agree opinions should not be attacked but are fair game to be debated.(and critiqued)

[Yollam]

5. The people you're describing sound like liberals, not progressives.

Progressives, in my understanding are more radical and leftist than liberals, if not leftists, trying to use a more "appetizing" label. I call myself both a leftist and a progressive, and I'm neither pro-establishment or pro-corporate - that's your liberals ("moderates" in the modern parlance).

[Fierce]

6. It's interesting...

...because in my understanding and experience, it's exactly the opposite.

[Finder]

9. That is my understanding as well. n/t

[Yollam]

16. It's only in recent years that "liberal" has been associated with the left

Up until the 70s, the liberals were the establishment, pro-business core of the democratic party. On the left, you had the populists, radicals, labor activists, even socialists, but the liberals were seen in much the same way as the DLC are seen today. Haven't you ever heard the old Phil Ochs song?

Love Me, I'm a Liberal


By Phil Ochs
(Born 1940, died 1976)
I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every coloured boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the AFL-CIO board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New Republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the Democratic Party.
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal


I suppose there are some liberals who use the label "progressive", now that "liberal" has become a pejorative, but in SF, for example, the progressives are the real lefties, always at odds with the Pacific Heights elites-financed democrats...

[Armstead]

7. The philosophical vs, the political

I'm not sure where I'd fall on your scale.

I do respect other opinions, and I believe that action has to be a synthesis of differing opinions. So I can completely emphasize with -- and in some ways agree with -- conservative critiques, opinions and values and goals.

At the same time, I also believe we have to break free of the tyranny of the "conventional wisdom" and look at the roots of things and challenge the accepted contexts that dictate much of our society. Such as the blind acceptance of Corporate Power, the theory that "Bigger is Better" and deeper quesationing of even more basic philosophical aspects of the social contracts.

Therefore, criticism of otehr opinions is both justified and necessary.

There's also the matter of pragmatism versus idealism. My core beliefs are probably very socialist. But in the real world, I also realize that they are more ideals and goals than attainable realities. The best to hope for is to move closer to those ideals.

I also realize that pure socialism is as bad as pure individualism. To put it bluntly, I don't want to live in some damn PC society.

In other words -- Balance is All. Progress is the dynamic give-and-take of all points of view. No one and no single philosophy or ideology has all the answers. In that sense I'm a Radical Moderate.

[Finder]

10. Good post. n/t

[hiphopnation]

15. hooray!

A Radical Moderate. :rofl: Can I be one too? Excellent post. :thumbsup:

[Solo_in_MD]

8. Some posters here are very doctrinaire and insist on conformity

to *their* opinions or you are not a true liberal or progressive. Sort of like the Quebec's purists and 'vrai laine'

Progressives should be the big tent and yet we bludgeon each other over smaller differences to the point where we fragment and destroy our effectiveness.

[The2ndWheel]

12. We all do it

"insist on conformity"

"Progressives should be"

See.

"yet we bludgeon each other over smaller differences"

I'm doing this one right now.

[Beelzebud]

11. Agreed. Read some Saul Alinsky. He knew what the difference was too.

George Carlin once said: This whole notion of "politically correct" speech is just a complete subversion of the 1st amendment.

I've always agreed with this.

I HATE those that insist that we can NEVER be offensive to anyone. It is a watering down of language, and it is bullshit. This is why we have a hard time fighting. If you're trying to be nice all the time, how can you really go after someone. Look at the last Democratic convention. Some of the main speakers didn't even refer to Bush by name...

We need a return to radicalism. We consistantly bring a knife to a gun-fight, with these republicans. It's time to stand our ground...

This is why the DLC and their ilk are running around trying to figure out what the hell the party is for. Because their focus groups, marketing research, and politically correct Bullshit has failed them, and they are left looking like reeds in the wind, morphing to be whatever will be the least offensive to those directly in front of them.

[Armstead]

13. It's possible to be radical and nice

Paul Wellstone was an example of someone who criticized many things harshly, but was never mean spirited or petty about it.

Bernie Sanders -- although he can get visibly pissed off and pointed -- is able to say very strong things in a very courteous way.

IMO both of them represent the best way to go after problems, in a way that average people can relate to.

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. I'm not really talking about political correctness

I do think what is often called political correctness falls into a similiar trap, because it paints itself as opposed to things that "offend" people. The problem with what is critiqued in language and culture is the continuation of a system of power that embeds itself in language, not personal offense. So, I often agree with people labelled "politically correct" (the label itself is almost always used in a reactionary manner), but not because of "offensiveness." Rather, like opinion, the use of certain terms are a symptom of the functioning of social power, and so those terms should be vigorously criticized. The problem with the word "n*gger" is not that it offends people. It is that it reinforces a system of white privilege and domination. The greatest success of the right has been the lie that language doesn't matter for social power, and the greatest failure of the progressives on this subject has been the reduction of the critique of language to a matter of personal offense.